Actually, I wonder why people see the necessity to sprinkle such abilities through the mundane classes and have these mega-discussions about spellcasters being so versatile/powerful and martial characters being so limited.
<snip>
People lose their minds over this "lack of balance" and search for ways to beef up the martial types. Gotta a little clue for those people. The martial types are already balanced. They are better at some things, spellcasters are better at other things.
In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I'd love to hear more anecdotes about this plays out in actual play. Like, when your party is level 5, the wizard has 8-9 spells prepared and can cast, what, two third-level spells? Seems like enough room to prepare some utility but probably not enough slots to use it freely without risking a situation where you can't save the day with fireball because you decided to bypass a spike pit with fly. But I can see that changing at higher levels, maybe?
@
Andor and @
Sacrosanct , there have been several of these threads ongoing at once so I figured I'd just aggregate folks involved as I'd be curious to get you guys' take on the below. Its going to be a little bit different then just a response about D&D anecdotes because that often seems to lend to accusations of "adversarial GMing (either too much, or not enough) in terms of putting pressure on/shutting down a wizard's pool of means to dictate the workday, dictate the scope of the battlefield (or if there will be on at all), outright transition scenes or end conflicts, etc". Those seem to not go very far and then people who have GMed D&D (and other systems) for 30 years (all systems, all styles/agendas, all levels) start realizing the futility of trying to communicate, and make extrapolations from, their experience to others.
So, I'd be curious if you'd take a moment to read the below and respond. I posted this in another thread as it was relevant to the theme of that thread (process-simulation of various classes' "craft" (eg spellcraft vs fightercraft), versimilitude, and balance). Its very relevant to the theme of this thread as well. I'm going to amend it a bit for this thread.
So I've GMed quite a bit of Dungeon World. None of you might have GMed the system but it shares a lot of GMing principles with old school D&D and 4e (and some other systems). In Dungeon World, the basic resolution scheme for actions (moves) is:
[sblock]Roll 2d6 + (bounded) modifier.
* on a 10 + you do what you set out to do
* on a 7-9 you have success with complications
* on a 6- you mark XP and something not-so-good happens[/sblock]
Every time a Wizard casts a spell, the below player
Move is made:
[sblock]
[h=3]
Cast a Spell (Int)[/h] When you
release a spell you’ve prepared, roll+Int.
✴ On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell—you may cast it again later.
✴ On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:
- You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
- The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast—take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
- After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.
[/sblock]
The math of the system intentionally puts most outcomes in 7-9 as it generates the most compelling and dynamic play.
That is one of the primary drivers of play. The second is the GMing principles and GM
Moves:
[sblock]
Dungeon World RPG Chapter 13: GM Principles, p 161
Make a Move that FollowsWhen you make a move what you're actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting. What's going on? What move makes sense here?
Dungeon World RPG Chapter 13: GM Moves, p 163 and 164
Moves
- Use a monster, danger, or location move
- Reveal an unwelcome truth
- Show sings of an approaching threat
- Deal damage
- Use up their resources
- Turn their move back on them
- Separate them
- Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
- Show a downside to their class, race, <tools/build/powers/equipment>
- Offer an opportunity, with or without cost
- Put someone in a spot
- Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask <a focused question>
Choosing a Move
To choose a move, start by looking at the obvious consequences of the action that triggered it. If you already have an idea, think on it for a second to make sure it fits your agenda and principles and then do it. Let your moves snowball. Build on the success or failure of the characters' moves and on your own previous moves.
If your first instinct is that this won't hurt them now, but it'll come back to bite them later, great! That's part of your principles (think offscreen too). Make a note of and reveal it when the time is right.
[/sblock]
DW does a great job at
formalizing D&D play into a conversation whereby the mode of play is:
a) player move
b) "make a move that follows from the fiction" GM hard move (perhaps use up their resources or introduce a dire peril) if the resolution of the player move is immediate or impending adversity/threat/disaster (6-)
c) "make a move that follows from the fiction" GM soft move (perhaps present an opportunity with cost) if the resolution of the player move is success with complications (7-9)
d) make a soft move that follows from the fiction if the players look to you to find out "what happens next"
All of this is meant to produce a game that (1) "fills the PCs' lives with adventure" and to (2) "see what happens" as you do all of these things. Sounds pretty familiar, right?
Also, just like D&D, its got the familiar pressure points. The players have a very elegant form of encumbrance to deal with (load). The players have to deal with ration/ammo expenditure and replenishment. The players have (a low number of) HPs. They have unified and formalized debilities they might incur. The spellcasters have spell load-out to manage and attempt to recoup. The players have moves to make to
Resupply. They also have moves to
Take Watch, and to
Rest and Recover. These work to facilitate (or not) replenishment of lost resources (rations/ammo, HPs, spells, remove debilities, etc).
Again, sounds pretty familiar, right? Dungeon World also formalizes the exploration and alignment/ethos part of D&D play. These formalized components are key to DW's GMing responsibilities and the output of play. XP is derived through (a) player failure (6- in resolution), (b) resolving a Bond ("so and so saved my life and I owe them a great debt"), resolving your Alignment statement ("endanger yourself to protect someone weaker than you"), and answering exploration questions when the group collectively makes the
End of Session move (questions where we all deliberate on what just happened and "what we learned/established.").
With that established, I'd be curious as to your take on the below:
I've probably GMed 25ish sessions of DW (maybe around 80-100 hours). Most of that GMing has had a Fighter character alongside a Wizard character. In Dungeon World, this is how those classes stack up relative to classic D&D (1e - 4e).
1) The Fighter is extremely powerful and has some extremely awesome fiat/trump card abilities (such as the ability to intuit outcomes, who lives or dies, on the battlefield before its been settled...or divine information from the psychic resonance or spirits of those who have held/died by his signature weapon).
2) The Fighter has + 2 armor (damage reduction versus physical damage-in to HPs) base (and suffers no debility due to wearing that heavy armor), d10 + Con HP and d10 damage. The Wizard has 0 armor base, and d4 in both HP and damage.
3) The Wizard gets less (significantly so when considering some editions) spells known and their spell load-out is less than any Wizard in D&D (sans 4e and not
too terribly far from 1e). However, they can cast (costly - not just gold) rituals, dismiss ongoing spells and enact wards, and empower spells (if they take that move latter) among other archtypical wizardly things.
4) The Wizard's spells are less powerful than in D&D 1e-3.x and 5e.
5) The Wizard must interface with the basic action resolution mechanics every time they cast a spell (test their spellcraft). Fallout from success with complications may be challenging while fallout from failure should be rather unwelcome (to the character...hopefully the player finds fun in it!).
All of these things persist in DW. Fighters are combat monsters with awesome archtypal stuff (like destroying inanimate objects and being crazy athletic which typically involves
Defying Danger and making world moves with good physical stats) and some incredible trump card abilities (maybe
Parlay using Strength or uncanny intuition/ awareness that might be borderline supernatural...or it may just be "mundane" precognition). Regardless of that, Wizards are every part as powerful and as fun in play as Fighters. Dungeon World is undoubtedly balanced and it produces Fighters and Wizards that are engaging and perform to their legendary archetypes in both combat and noncombat conflict resolution.
Any thoughts on this DW paradigm persisting side by side with the classic D&D Fighter vs Wizard class mechanics model and its own output in play? Specifically, how is the rhetorical position that the D&D Wizard (who is more powerful than an
Ars Magica Wizard) and the (4e exempt) D&D Fighter are balanced compatible with Dungeon World's own model?
